Literature DB >> 21077966

Comparison between genomic predictions using daughter yield deviation and conventional estimated breeding value as response variables.

G Guo1, M S Lund, Y Zhang, G Su.   

Abstract

This study compared genomic predictions using conventional estimated breeding values (EBV) and daughter yield deviations (DYD) as response variables based on simulated data. Eight scenarios were simulated in regard to heritability (0.05 and 0.30), number of daughters per sire (30, 100, and unequal numbers with an average of 100 per sire) and numbers of genotyped sires (all or half of sires were genotyped). The simulated genome had a length of 1200 cM with 15,000 equally spaced Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers and 500 randomly distributed Quantitative trait locus (QTL). In the simulated scenarios, the EBV approach was as effective as or slightly better than the DYD approach at predicting breeding value, dependent on simulated scenarios and statistical models. Applying a Bayesian common prior model (the same prior distribution of marker effect variance) and a linear mixed model (GBLUP), the EBV and DYD approaches provided similar genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) reliabilities, except for scenarios with unequal numbers of daughters and half of sires without genotype, for which the EBV approach was superior to the DYD approach (by 1.2 and 2.4%). Using a Bayesian mixture prior model (mixture prior distribution of marker effect variance), the EBV approach resulted in slightly higher reliabilities of GEBV than the DYD approach (by 0.3-3.6% with an average of 1.9%), and more obvious in scenarios with low heritability, small or unequal numbers of daughters, and half of sires without genotype. Moreover, the results showed that the correlation between GEBV and conventional parent average (PA) was lower (corresponding to a relatively larger gain by including PA) when using the DYD approach than when using the EBV approach. Consequently, the two approaches led to similar reliability of an index combining GEBV and PA in most scenarios. These results indicate that EBV can be used as an alternative response variable for genomic prediction.
© 2010 Blackwell Verlag GmbH.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21077966     DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2010.00878.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet        ISSN: 0931-2668            Impact factor:   2.380


  22 in total

1.  A comparison of genomic selection models across time in interior spruce (Picea engelmannii × glauca) using unordered SNP imputation methods.

Authors:  B Ratcliffe; O G El-Dien; J Klápště; I Porth; C Chen; B Jaquish; Y A El-Kassaby
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  The impact of clustering methods for cross-validation, choice of phenotypes, and genotyping strategies on the accuracy of genomic predictions.

Authors:  Johnna L Baller; Jeremy T Howard; Stephen D Kachman; Matthew L Spangler
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Incorporating the single-step strategy into a random regression model to enhance genomic prediction of longitudinal traits.

Authors:  H Kang; L Zhou; R Mrode; Q Zhang; J-F Liu
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  Canine hip dysplasia is predictable by genotyping.

Authors:  G Guo; Z Zhou; Y Wang; K Zhao; L Zhu; G Lust; L Hunter; S Friedenberg; J Li; Y Zhang; S Harris; P Jones; J Sandler; U Krotscheck; R Todhunter; Z Zhang
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 6.576

5.  Genome-wide association study and genomic predictions for exterior traits in Yorkshire pigs1.

Authors:  Jungjae Lee; SeokHyun Lee; Jong-Eun Park; Sung-Ho Moon; Sung-Woon Choi; Gwang-Woong Go; Dajeong Lim; Jun-Mo Kim
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Estimating additive and non-additive genetic variances and predicting genetic merits using genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism markers.

Authors:  Guosheng Su; Ole F Christensen; Tage Ostersen; Mark Henryon; Mogens S Lund
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Whole-genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding.

Authors:  Gustavo de Los Campos; John M Hickey; Ricardo Pong-Wong; Hans D Daetwyler; Mario P L Calus
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  A common reference population from four European Holstein populations increases reliability of genomic predictions.

Authors:  Mogens S Lund; Adrianus P W de Roos; Alfred G de Vries; Tom Druet; Vincent Ducrocq; Sébastien Fritz; François Guillaume; Bernt Guldbrandtsen; Zenting Liu; Reinhard Reents; Chris Schrooten; Franz Seefried; Guosheng Su
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-12-12       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Accuracy of Genome-Enabled Prediction in a Dairy Cattle Population using Different Cross-Validation Layouts.

Authors:  M Angeles Pérez-Cabal; Ana I Vazquez; Daniel Gianola; Guilherme J M Rosa; Kent A Weigel
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 4.599

10.  Genomic selection for fruit quality traits in apple (Malus×domestica Borkh.).

Authors:  Satish Kumar; David Chagné; Marco C A M Bink; Richard K Volz; Claire Whitworth; Charmaine Carlisle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.